Skills gap 2

Quillette is a gem.

I find this, A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere, a compelling, thoughtful (fairly long) article from a person highly qualified to comment (emphasis mine):

“As an academic, I appreciate the value of intellectual inquiry that challenges our socially constructed defaults. As someone born into a mixed-race family steeped in the civil rights movement—my father was black and my mother was white—I was nurtured to recognize the harm that social constructions about race and sex can do to subordinated individuals, groups and societies. As the wife of a black man and the mother of two black sons, my radar for both explicit and implied racism is finely tuned. As a woman, a feminist and a lawyer, I have an abiding commitment to anti-discrimination norms, and to race and sex discrimination laws in particular. As a humanist, I believe that each one of us has the right to self-identify.”

She doesn’t even mention her pioneering, elite athletic background. She is highly likely to vote Progressive (‘socially constructed’, ‘implied racism’, ‘subordinated individuals’), so the usual SJW ad hominem counter arguments are blunted – and she deals with them, IAC.

I am struck by the implications for the core political debate about what the word “equality” implies. There’s a faction insisting it means equality of opportunity and a faction insisting it means equality of outcome. Gender feminists have been in the latter group, claiming different outcomes ipso facto prove discrimination based on sex. However, there is some tension (you might say cognitive dissonance) for that subset of those gender feminists (the so-called Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) who want to preserve a traditional definition of the word “female” in the face of trans-sexual attack. And attack is the right word… If anyone can decide, moment to moment, that they are female without reference to biology – what’s the point of “Women’s Studies.”

It turns out, in the case of female athletics (a proxy for the ‘real world’), that you can’t even approach equality of outcome without equality of opportunity. No XX has the opportunity if XY is allowed to directly compete, so the outcome is no females on the podium for one definition of “female.”

It’s delicious watching them hoist by their own petard. If they stumble upon a bit of introspection, maybe they’ll apply the lesson to their prattle about the “wage gap.”

James Damore is laughing.

They is wrong

It could have come from almost any campus, but this is from the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University:

“No science is needed to support transgender and non-binary identities,” the email stated. “It is simply a matter of affirming their experiences.”

No science is possible “to support transgender and non-binary identities” as a replacement for biological, binary sex classifications.  Assuming the conclusion that science-based sex classifications are secondary to each person’s internal mind-state at any given moment is baked into the MSU memo.

As to “affirming their experiences,” isn’t that their job? How can another person do that? Doesn’t that require identity appropriation? How else can one know the experiences are worthy of affirmation?

Clicking on the pronoun link brings up a colorful and interactive web page titled “I [love] the singular they,” which maps out benefits and tools to using the pronoun to refer to a person. The page argues that the singular “they” is “neutral,” “easy,” “inclusive,” and “classy.”

And wrong.

“Writing with non-gender-neutral pronouns is a serious pain,” the site linked by MSU says. “Some prefer the Frankenword ‘s/he,’ while others rack their brain. Some stick with a particular pronoun for one paragraph or chapter, then swap out the one they’re using; others alternate ‘he’ and ‘she’ by sentence, or use a plural adapter, but that all sounds confusing.”

Alternating he/she wouldn’t satisfy ze, in any case. And using “they” as singular isn’t confusing? Why do we even have a plural? So that we can understand a sentence like “Chris thought they were late to the party.” Unless we want to make people say, “Chris thought they was late to the party,” “they” is a non-starter.

The suggestion of the singular “they” is an effort to overcome objections to the plethora of neologisms like “ze, ne, xe,” etc.. Those who want a neo-pronoun need to vote on the one they’ll all use and stick to it. That is, if they actually want it eventually generally adopted, rather than just using the issue to harass others who don’t want to start every conversation with a negotiation about pronouns.

I have a suggestion. If avoiding “misgendering” is so important – use the person’s name.  Now, “Chris thought Chris was late to the party,” is still confusing and certainly stilted.  It still requires you to know Chris’s mind, and whether there’s another Chris, to sort it out.  Maybe “thou” and “thee?”  can be appropriated.

Any of this still requires you to deploy two modes of speech based on another person’s current perception of themselves.  But it’s a “good cause:”

MSU physiology student Shad Soldano … admitted the email “did take me by surprise,” he told Campus Reform, “I feel that the email (in my understanding) portrays a good cause in bringing awareness and hopefully eliminating remaining prejudices towards the transgender community.”

He feels elevating a tiny minorities’ attempted appropriation of culture by a set of prejudices against anyone who objects to compelled speech “portrays a good cause.”

When did feeling replace thinking? When something portrays sensitivity, compassion, and diversity – even if the result is 180 degrees out of phase with the stated intention. The real intention, the one you have to think about, is not benign.

If I must “affirm your experiences,” what’s to stop that at your “identity?”

Faire disparaître la différence

The Cheshire Cat meets George Orwell.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
– George Orwell, 1984

“Diversity” has become a catch phrase used to whip anyone having the temerity to suggest fundamental differences exist between/among human beings. The contention is, “All individuals are the same, except when subverted by socio-cultural-political oppression. Any difference in outcome is ipso facto evidence of racism, sexism, xenophobia, or some other pervasive bias – conscious or unconscious.” Diversity is taken to mean, “If we’re not all living the same life, it’s because of a conspiracy.”

Call it “Damore Derangement Syndrome,” after the engineer fired by Google for suggesting the possibility that different people might make diverse choices. He isn’t alone. Psychology Today explains the science. Highly recommended:

The Truth About Sex Differences

Fact: As a percentage of enrollment, there are more female science majors in Burma, Oman, and Morocco than in the countries of Scandinavia.

Fact: American women are 15 percent less likely to reach a managerial position in the workplace than are men—but in Sweden women are 48 percent less likely, in Norway 52 percent, in Finland 56 percent, and in Denmark 63 percent.

Whatever the differences in men’s and women’s psyches—empathy, jealousy, cognitive abilities, mate preferences—many theories in psychology assume that they result primarily from direct gender socialization by parents, media, and societal institutions. As a result, it is often expected that sex differences will be smaller in cultures with higher levels of gender-related egalitarianism, as in Scandinavia, where socialization and roles are more balanced between men and women and sociopolitical gender equity prevails.

Surprisingly, several large cross-cultural studies have found this is not at all the case. Whether scientists measure Big Five personality traits, such as neuroticism; Dark Triad traits, such as psychopathy; or self-esteem, subjective well-being, or depression, empirical evidence shows that most sex differences are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles—as in Scandinavia…

Culture matters in explaining psychological sex differences, but not in the way most people think. It’s not harsher gender socialization by parents and media, stringent societal gender roles, or institutional sociopolitical forces that widen the differences between men and women in the most progressive nations in the world. When you treat everyone the same, as in the Nordic countries, it’s only genetic predispositions that produce the most observable individual differences. Extremes of sexual freedom beget larger psychological sex differences. Or as explained by Israeli psychologists Shalom Schwartz and Tammy Rubel-Lifshitz, it may be that having fewer gendered restrictions in a culture allows “both sexes to pursue more freely the values they inherently care about more.”

People pushing homogeneous “Diversity,” while complaining about “cultural appropriation,” don’t grasp the definition of “oxymoron.” Shouldn’t total cross-cultural appropriation be their goal? Shouldn’t we all aspire to be NPCs?

Not if more choice means more actual diversity.

Fairest of them all?

Don’t Deny Girls the Evolutionary Wisdom of Fairy-Tales

Cinderella, for example, revolves around the perniciousness of what researchers call “female intrasexual competition”—the often-underhanded ways women compete with each other. While men evolved to be openly competitive, jockeying for position verbally or physically, female competition tends to be covert—indirect and sneaky—and often involves sabotaging another woman into being less appealing to men…

Psychologist Joyce Benenson, who researches sex differences, traces women’s evolved tendency to opt for indirectness—in both competition and communication—to a need to avoid physical altercation, either with men or other women. This strategy would have allowed ancestral women to protect their more fragile female reproductive machinery and to fulfill their roles as the primary caretaker for any children they might have.

This piece is well worth reading in full. The quote above struck me, since I’ve been writing lately about the UBC study saying millennial males place lower value on competitiveness and independence (for two things) than openness and empathy. Presumably, there is a cultural influence at work, and I suspect it is tied into the Feminist push to raise all children to see the world with female eyes.

But competitiveness and independence, and openness and empathy are not the exclusive property of one sex. That competitiveness is considered a ‘male’ trait is true for only the male competitiveness style (open). Female competitiveness is just as intense. It just takes a different, and one could argue, less healthy form.

I could hear Jordan Peterson’s voice in the discussion of the evolutionary biology involved in creating the Cinderella/Snow White archetypes. I was also reminded of his discussion of highly-competent women, in high-pressure professions, he’s helped with assertiveness training. Understanding why one might need assertiveness training would be beneficial, and flatly denying evolutionary lessons in favor of a political agenda would not.

The beast is slouching toward hard science

When the SJWs come for scientists, it gets ugly fast

This was predictable based on what SJWs have done to History, Psychology, Anthropology, and Geography. Sociology, of course, surrendered at the first opportunity and all the “Studies” were founded on the idea of intersectional relativism. The pronoun wars were just the opening salvo on reality.

Math will be last, after Chemistry and Physics, but 2.00+2.00 = ‘a spectrum between 3 and 5’ is waiting in the wings.

Science suppression

This must be the “other way of knowing” Feminists are on about.

The New Evolution Deniers

Harvard Med School falls silent, won’t clarify why it opposes Trump admin’s definition of sex

New Study Confirms Yet Again Gender ‘Wage’ Gap Due To Women Not Working. Guess How The Media Is Portraying It.

Most people would call it Newspeak. See also Venndetta.

Venndetta

A Professor at Brown Uncovers a Transgender Inconvenient Truth

More than 4,000 people have signed a petition supporting a Brown University social scientist who is under fire from activists and her own university for research raising questions about whether social factors, rather than biological ones, could influence young adults’ transgender identities.

The point I take from this story is not a bit of evidence informing the nature/nuture debate, nor a “truth” about people who profess to be one of any number of non-cis-normative “genders.”

The point is academics stepping out of their safe spaces to claim the strict application of orthodoxy is not just appropriate, but mandatory. I see Newspeak enforcers.

Here we have academics insisting transgenderism is in no way socially constructed. It’s all nature. Outcomes are biologically predetermined.

These are the same academics who insist any difference in the choices of those with XX chromsomes from those with XY chromosomes is totally socially constructed by a patriarchcal conspiracy. It’s all nurture. Outcomes are culturally determined.

There are two propositions:
1-Differences between transgenders and non-transgenders cannot be based on social influence.
2-Differences between those with XX and XY chromosomes are entirely due to social influence.

What is in common is this: No question can be asked that might challenge SJW orthodoxy.

There’s a Venn diagram there for Dr. Perry.

Dystopia and Dsyphoria

Gender Dysphoria in Children
American College of Pediatricians – June 2017
Primary author: Michelle Cretella, MD

This is a long, clearly written, scientific paper examing the evidence for letting children as young as 11 decide whether to undergo sex-transition hormone therapy and radical sex-change surgery. It is interesting, and does not require highly specialized knowledge to understand. I recommend it if you have any interest in this topic, or want to understand the relationship of legally forcing* the use of invented pronouns to post-modernism’s rejection of objective reality

“Advocates of the medical interventionist paradigm… are also post-modernists but hold a subjective view of “First do no harm.” Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and leader in pediatric gender transitioning, has stated that “[First do no harm] is really subjective. [H]istorically we come from a very paternalistic perspective… [in which] doctors are really given the purview of deciding what is going to be harmful and what isn’t. And that, in the world of gender, is really problematic.”7 Not only does she claim that “First do no harm” is subjective, but she later also states that it should be left to the child decide what constitutes harm based upon their own subjective thoughts and feelings.7”

…In 2007 Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric endocrinologist and founder of the nation’s first gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital, launched the pubertal suppression paradigm in the United States.41 It consists of first affirming the child’s false self-concept by instituting name and pronoun changes, and facilitating the impersonation of the opposite sex within and outside of the home.”

The paper speaks to the (deliberate) confusion of “gender” with “sex,” and provides evidence that supporters of childhood gender reassignment protocols are pursuing an anti-scientific political agenda when they deny biological sex and subject children to medical experimentation.

If this were about the experience of sexual activity rather than the idea that children are trapped in bodies of a biological sex different from their perceived biological sex, we would call it statutory rape, against which we have laws for the very good reason that pre-pubescent children are not capable of consent.

Gender reassignment therapy for 11 year olds is rape in a far deeper sense, violating both psychological and physical boundaries of those who clearly lack the relevant life-experience to make such decisions. I’d call it mind-rape, but it also permanently alters the body.

Nonetheless, there are advocates, in and out of some 40 American sex change clinics, for applying potentially dangerous (psychopathology, sterility, death) and irreversible therapies to children based on the whimsical nature of the child’s current opinion.

Future generations will look on this and wonder if we were insane.

*As has happened in Canada, California and New York City.

"I am not going to have sex with that woman. Period!"

What “Death Panels” means is – The government decides who delivers care, what care is allowed, where it can be delivered and what you pay for it.

There may not yet be official “Death Panels,” but the Obama Administration has no moral or philosophical objection. Dan Pfeiffer (@pfeiffer44) Tweeted this:

The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance thkpr.gs/1hHgZjp via @TPHealth—Dan Pfeiffer (@pfeiffer44) November 04, 2013

Pfeiffer is Assistant to the President of the United States and Senior Advisor to the President for Strategy and Communications. The Tweet was from his official White House account.

Already, Democrats are calling for doctors to be forced to deliver the health care the government permits you to have, at the price the government wants to pay. That was the point all along. First, though, individual access to health insurance would have to be destroyed.

The spin is just making it worse, guys. It’s as if Bill Clinton had said, “I’m not going to have sex with that woman. Period!” Then, (after having sex with that woman) he would say “And the sex I did not have was better sex and vastly more affordable sex than Hillary any American has ever delivered experienced!”

Then, the Progressives would chant in unison that fellatio is not having sex, and seek to redefine the meaning of “is.”

Oh, wait. That’s exactly what they are doing, again, just with different nouns and verbs.